Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:42:30.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consistency is key: interactions of current and previous farrowing system on litter size and piglet mortality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2018

R. L. King Open the ORCID record for R. L. King [Opens in a new window] ,
E. M. Baxter ,
S. M. Matheson  and
S. A. Edwards
R. L. King*
Affiliation:
School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
E. M. Baxter
Affiliation:
Animal & Veterinary Sciences, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
S. M. Matheson
Affiliation:
School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Global interest in alternative indoor farrowing systems is increasing, leading to a growing number of farms utilising such systems alongside standard crates. There is evidence that interchanging sows between different farrowing systems affects maternal behaviour, whilst the subsequent effect of this on piglet mortality is unknown. The current study hypothesised that second parity piglet mortality would be higher if a sow farrowed in a different farrowing system to that of her first parity. Retrospective farm performance records were used from 753 sows during their first and second parities. Sows farrowed in either standard crates (crates), temporary crates (360s) or straw-bedded pens (pens), with mortality recorded as occurring either pre- or post-processing. Inter- and intra-parity sow consistency in performance were also investigated. Overall, total piglet mortality reduced from the first to the second parity, being significantly higher in the crates and higher in the 360s during the first or second parity, respectively. In the second parity, an interaction of the current and previous farrowing systems resulted in the lowest incidence of crushing for sows housed in the same system as their first parity for the crates and pens, but not the 360s. Post-processing mortality was significantly higher in the crates if a sow previously farrowed in the 360s and vice versa. Sows which previously farrowed in a pen had a significantly larger litter size and lower pre-processing mortality from crushing in their second parity than sows previously housed in the crates or the 360s. No inter-parity consistency of sow performance was found, whilst intra-parity consistency was found in the first but not second parity. In conclusion, returning sows to the same farrowing system appears to reduce piglet mortality, whilst farrowing in a pen during the first parity significantly increased second parity litter size without increasing piglet mortality.

Keywords

sow performancesow experiencematernal behaviourfree farrowingtemporary crating
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 180 - 188
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, IL, Berg, S and Bøe, KE 2005. Crushing of piglets by the mother sow (Sus scrofa) – Purely accidental or a poor mother? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 229–243.Google Scholar
Arey, DS 1997. Behavioural observations of peri-parturient sows and the development of alternative farrowing accommodation: a review. Animal Welfare 6, 217–229.Google Scholar
Arey, DS and Sancha, ES 1996. Behaviour and productivity of sows and piglets in a family system and in farrowing crates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50, 135–145.Google Scholar
Boyle, LA, Leonard, FC, Lynch, PB and Brophy, P 2002. Effect of gestation housing on behaviour and skin lesions of sows in farrowing crates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 119–134.Google Scholar
Chidgey, KL, Morel, PCH, Stafford, KJ and Barugh, IW 2015. Sow and piglet productivity and sow reproductive performance in farrowing pens with temporary crating or farrowing crates on a commercial New Zealand pig farm. Livestock Science 173, 87–94.Google Scholar
Chidgey, KL, Morel, PCH, Stafford, KJ and Barugh, IW 2016. The performance and behaviour of gilts and their piglets is influenced by whether they were born and reared in farrowing crates or farrowing pens. Livestock Science 193, 51–57.Google Scholar
Cronin, GM, Lefébure, B and McClintock, S 2000. A comparison of piglet production and survival in the Werribee Farrowing Pen and conventional farrowing crates at a commercial farm. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, 17–23.Google Scholar
Cronin, GM and van Amerongen, G 1991. The effects of modifying the farrowing environment on sow behaviour and survival and growth of piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 287–298.Google Scholar
Edwards, SA, Brett, M, Ison, S, Jack, M, Seddon, YM and Baxter, EM 2012. Design principles and practical evaluation of the PigSAFE free farrowing pen. In Proceedings of the 4th European Symposium on Porcine Health Management (ESPHM), 25–27 April, Bruges, Belgium, p. 113.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Committee 2015. Opinion on free farrowing systems. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Westminster, London, UK.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1996. Report on the welfare of pigs kept outdoors. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Westminster, London, UK.Google Scholar
Hales, J, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Hansen, CF 2014. Higher preweaning mortality in free farrowing pens compared with farrowing crates in three commercial pig farms. Animal 8, 113–120.Google Scholar
Hales, J, Moustsen, VA, Nielsen, MBF and Hansen, CF 2015. Temporary confinement of loose-housed hyperprolific sows reduces piglet mortality. Journal of Animal Science 93, 4079–4088.Google Scholar
Hidalgo, DM, Friendship, RM, Greiner, L, Manjarin, R, Amezcua, MR, Dominguez, JC and Kirkwood, RN 2014. Influence of lactation length and gonadotrophins administered at weaning on fertility of primiparous sows. Animal Reproduction Science 149, 245–248.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, D’Eath, RB, Robson, SK and Lawrence, AB 2006. The effect of confinement during lactation on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and behaviour of primiparous sows. Physiology & Behavior 87, 345–352.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, Lawrence, AB, McLean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J and Calvert, SK 1997. The effect of environment on behavioural activity, ACTH, β-endorphin and cortisol in pre-farrowing gilts. Animal Science 65, 465–472.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S, Van der Vegt, BJ, Lawrence, AB, McLean, KA, Deans, LA, Chirnside, J and Calvert, SK 2001. The effect of parity and environmental restriction on behavioural and physiological responses of pre-parturient pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71, 203–216.Google Scholar
KilBride, AL, Mendl, M, Statham, P, Held, S, Harris, M, Cooper, S and Green, LE 2012. A cohort study of preweaning piglet mortality and farrowing accommodation on 112 commercial pig farms in England. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 104, 281–291.Google Scholar
King, RL, Baxter, EM, Matheson, SM and Edwards, SA 2018. Temporary crate opening procedure affects immediate post-opening piglet mortality and sow behaviour. Animal, in press.Google Scholar
Lassen, BJ, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2006. Happy pigs are dirty! – conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103, 221–230.Google Scholar
Marchant, JN, Rudd, AR, Mendl, MT, Broom, DM, Meredith, MJ, Corning, S and Simmins, PH 2000. Timing and causes of piglet mortality in alternative and conventional farrowing systems. Veterinary Record 147, 209–214.Google Scholar
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 2016. RSPCA welfare standards for pigs. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Horsham, UK.Google Scholar
Su, G, Lund, MS and Sorensen, D 2007. Selection for litter size at day five to improve litter size at weaning and piglet survival rate. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1385–1392.Google Scholar
Thaker, MYC and Bilkei, G 2005. Lactation weight loss influences subsequent reproductive performance of sows. Animal Reproduction Science 88, 309–318.Google Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH and Herskin, MS 2002a. Nest building and farrowing in sows: relation to the reaction pattern during stress, farrowing environment and experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77, 21–42.Google Scholar
Thodberg, K, Jensen, KH and Herskin, MS 2002b. Nursing behaviour, postpartum activity and reactivity in sows: effects of farrowing environment, previous experience and temperament. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 77, 53–76.Google Scholar
Weber, R, Keil, NM, Fehr, M and Horat, R 2009. Factors affecting piglet mortality in loose farrowing systems on commercial farms. Livestock Science 124, 216–222.Google Scholar
Wechsler, B and Hegglin, D 1997. Individual differences in the behaviour of sows at the nest-site and the crushing of piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 51, 39–49.Google Scholar
Yun, J, Swan, K, Vienola, K, Farmer, C, Oliviero, C, Peltoniemi, O and Valros, A 2013. Nest-building in sows: effects of farrowing housing on hormonal modulation of maternal characteristics. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 148, 77–84.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

King et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S3

Download King et al. supplementary material(File)
File 685.2 KB